Impasse Ends Over Judge to Decide Kashmiri Separatist Asiya Andrabi’s Sentence
By: Javid Amin | 04 February 2026
A Legal Deadlock Finally Broken
A prolonged legal uncertainty surrounding the sentencing of Kashmiri separatist leader Asiya Andrabi has finally been resolved. A Delhi court has ruled that the same judge who convicted Andrabi under stringent anti-terror laws will also determine her punishment, bringing clarity to a case that carries both legal gravity and political sensitivity.
The ruling ends weeks of confusion triggered by the transfer of the presiding judge shortly after conviction, a procedural situation that raised fundamental questions about judicial continuity, fairness, and sentencing authority in high-profile terror cases.
With this decision, the case now moves decisively into its final phase — the determination of punishment — a moment that will be closely watched in legal, political, and security circles across India.
The Case at a Glance: Who Is Asiya Andrabi?
Asiya Andrabi, the chief of the banned organisation Dukhtaran-e-Millat, has been one of the most recognisable separatist faces in Kashmir for over two decades. Arrested in 2018, she has been in custody since, facing charges linked to terror funding, conspiracy, and secessionist activities.
Her organisation, often described as a hardline separatist women’s group, has been accused by investigative agencies of acting as a front for extremist propaganda and logistical support to militant causes in Jammu & Kashmir.
For the Indian state, the case against Andrabi has always been framed as far more than symbolic — it is positioned as part of a broader effort to dismantle organised separatist networks operating under ideological, religious, and political cover.
Conviction Under UAPA: A Landmark Judgment
Date and Court
-
Conviction delivered: January 14, 2026
-
Court: Special NIA Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Convicted Persons
-
Asiya Andrabi
-
Sofi Fehmida
-
Nahida Nasreen
Charges Proven
The court found the accused guilty under multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), including:
-
Criminal conspiracy to wage war against India
-
Membership of a terrorist organisation
-
Raising and channeling funds for unlawful activities
-
Promoting secessionist ideology
The judgment followed years of investigation, extensive documentation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and prolonged trial proceedings involving classified intelligence inputs, digital evidence, and witness testimonies.
The Judicial Impasse: How Confusion Arose
Transfer of the Convicting Judge
Shortly after delivering the conviction, Judge Chanderjit Singh, who presided over the trial, was transferred in November 2025 from the Special NIA Court at Patiala House to Karkardooma Courts, another district court complex in Delhi.
This routine administrative transfer unexpectedly led to a procedural deadlock:
-
Could a new judge, who had not heard the full trial, decide sentencing?
-
Or must the original judge retain jurisdiction for punishment?
Why the Question Was Serious
In criminal law — especially in terror and national security cases — sentencing is not mechanical. It requires:
-
Deep familiarity with evidence
-
Assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors
-
Understanding the intent, scale, and impact of offences
Legal experts warned that allowing a different judge to impose sentence could:
-
Invite appeals on procedural grounds
-
Weaken the robustness of the final order
-
Delay justice further in an already long-drawn case
Court’s Clarification: Conviction and Sentencing Are Inseparable
On February 2–3, 2026, Special Judge Prashant Sharma settled the issue decisively.
Key Ruling
The court clarified that:
The judge who delivered the conviction must also decide the sentence, even if transferred, provided he continues to serve within the same judicial hierarchy.
Accordingly:
-
The case has been sent back to Judge Chanderjit Singh
-
He will now hear arguments on sentencing at Karkardooma Courts
This interpretation aligns with long-standing judicial principles aimed at ensuring consistency, fairness, and informed sentencing.
Why This Decision Matters Beyond Procedure
1. Legal Consistency and Fair Trial
Sentencing is an extension of judgment, not a separate act. By ensuring the same judge handles both:
-
The court safeguards against arbitrary punishment
-
The defence and prosecution are assured continuity
2. High Stakes Under UAPA
Under Section 16 of UAPA, punishment can range from:
-
Rigorous imprisonment for life
-
To death penalty, in cases where terrorist acts result in fatalities
While Andrabi’s case does not directly involve a proven terror killing, the breadth of conspiracy and ideological facilitation will heavily influence sentencing.
3. Precedent for Future Terror Trials
The ruling reinforces an important procedural precedent for:
-
NIA courts
-
Special terrorism trials
-
Cases involving judge transfers mid-process
Political and Symbolic Significance
Asiya Andrabi is not just another convict — she represents a generation of separatist leadership that operated openly for years before the post-2019 crackdown.
Her sentencing will be viewed as:
-
A signal of how the Indian state treats ideological separatism
-
A benchmark for punishment in non-violent but extremist conspiracy cases
-
A message to remaining underground or overseas networks
In Jammu & Kashmir, reactions are expected to be polarised:
-
Security analysts see the case as closure of a long chapter
-
Separatist sympathisers may project it as political persecution
-
Civil rights groups are likely to scrutinise proportionality of punishment
What Happens Next: February 12 Hearing
The case is now listed for February 12, 2026, before Judge Chanderjit Singh at Karkardooma Court.
Next Stage
-
Prosecution will argue for maximum punishment, citing national security implications
-
Defence will seek leniency, citing age, gender, absence of direct violence, and long incarceration since 2018
Only after these arguments will the court pronounce the final sentence.
Conclusion: From Uncertainty to Final Reckoning
The Delhi court’s decision has ended weeks of legal ambiguity, clearing the path for one of the most consequential sentencing hearings in recent terror-related jurisprudence.
As the case returns to the judge who heard it from start to finish, the focus now shifts from who decides to what punishment fits — a determination that will resonate far beyond the courtroom, shaping legal, political, and security narratives around Kashmir and counter-terror law enforcement in the years ahead.
